ML17037B949

Letter Regarding a Request for Additional Information Relating to the Physical Model Testing of the Proposed Revetment-Ditch System

ML17037B949
Person / Time
Site:	Nine Mile Point
Issue date:	09/10/1976
From:	Varga S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Rhode G Niagara Mohawk Power Corp
References
Download: ML17037B949 (8)

Text

c L

I Distribution NRC 1'DR RHVo] lmer SEP 10 1976 Local.PDR MLErnst Docket. File WPGammill 1 e WMCDonald Docket No. 50-410 RCDeYoung ELD DBVassallo IE (3)

FJWil'liams ACRS (16)

WKane JMi 1.1er SAVArga r Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation MService JRBuchanan ATTN: Mr. Gerald R. Rhode RHeineman TBAbernathy Vice President - Engineering DRoss I 300 Erie Boulevard West Syracuse, New York, 13202 RTedesco HDenton Gentlemen: VAMoore REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORIQTION FOR l8%IE NILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION UNIT 2 We have reviewed your July 21, 1976 submittal of additional information relating to the physical model testing of the proposed revetment-ditch system for f line Mile Point Nuclear Station - Unit 2. As a result of that review we have developed requests for additional information. The enclosure to this letter delineates the information which we will require in order to continue our review of the proposed revetment-ditth system.

If you require clarification of the information which we have requested, please contact the NRC staff's assigned Licensing Project Manager immediately.-

Sincerely, S. . Varga, Chief Light Water Reactors Branch No. 4 Division of Project Management

Enclosure:

Request for Additional Information cc: See next page OFFICN+ D l 84 D 4-IIURNAMN+

0>/ g /76 9/ /76, Ponn ABC.318 (RCT. 9 53). hICM 0240 Q U. 9 OOVCRNMNNT RRINTINO OF/ICNI III'l4 CNO 'IOO

0 I

~ -4 a

f

'I I'l wg

/

(

~ 'I " 'I = xk'>

I \

-...iHwgara 0

Viohawk Power Corporation S<o iK n0- .hen ~ -

F9 Alvin E. Upton, Esq.

. LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby 8 NacRae

.1757 N Street, NW Washington, D. C. 20036 Hr. Richard Goldsmith Syracuse University College of Law E. 'I. White Hall Campus Syracuse, New York 13210 Or. William E. Seymour Staff Coordinator New York State Atomic Energy Council New York State Department of Commerce 99 Washington Street Albany, New York 12210

~

Anthony Z. Roisman, Esq.

Roisman, Kessler & CasFidan 1712 N Street, NW Washington, D. C. 20036

~EST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. gEp 3 0 )976 NINPAILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION -. UN' DOCKET NO. 410 We have reviewed your July 21, 1976 submittal and conclude that additional information is required to progress with our review of your model test proposal. Since the preliminary model tests have indicated little or no overtopping, but rather, wave transmission through the structure, we are concerned that your testing program does not account for potential clogging of the revetment voids with littoral drift, vegetation, and/or debris. We note that significant bluff erosion and subsequent longshore transport of littoral material is common along the southern shoreline of Lake Ontario. We axe concerned that significant material could be transported to the site and deposited at the revetment'area in such a manner as to inhibit or preclude the flow of water through the revetment. Also, changes in the shoreline at the revetment ends.(over the plant lifetime) could accelerate the erosion process. This would make the revetment much less permeable, possibly causing breaking waves to overtop the structure rather than be trans-mitted through it, as designed; We further note that no provisions have been made in your model testing program to account for the effects of short-term or long-term permeability reduction in the revetment.

Since maintaining the permeability of the revetment is very important in allowing flow (in both directions) through the structure, we will require that you submit the following information and documentation:

(1) Document'by pertinent analyses that there is no potential for deposition of littoral drift or debris in the site area, due to any particular physical characteristics, shoreline configurations, structuie designs, etc.

(2) Document the preventive measures that will be taken to assure that the revetment will not become clogged. If applicable, discuss any features that will be constructed (or monitoring and maintenance measures that will be implemented) to prevent buildup of littoral material and debris.

If (1) ox (2) above cannot be documented, you will be required to account for reduced permeability due to littoral buildup in your model testing. We will require further information regaxding the procedures and testing that will be performed

.. to document the adequacy of your revetment design under reduced permeability conditions. This information should be provided in the form of a preliminary test report.

(4) Alternately, we will require that no credit be given for wave transmission through the clogged structure and that runup and overtopping tests be performed using an impervious structure.

-0 He note that Figure 8 of your July 21, 1976 submittal- has -not been revised (as discussed in our recent meeting) to reflect the correct water depths on the structuie toe, especially at the east end of the revetment. 'ither correct the figure or revise your model testing to account for the increased water depths as shown on Figure 8.

As shown on Figure 7, one month will not be adequate time for the NRC staff to'eview and approve your model testing report. A minimum of eight weeks will be required for staff review. Revise your schedule accordingly.